Basic Village Education Project in Guatemala

DEV[LOfMENT USDIB Th AM
Ca5e tudie5 in Development Assistance No2
The basic village Education
project in Guatemala

Agency for International Development
Washington, D.C. 20523

THE BASIC VILLAGE EDUCATION PROJECT IN GUATEMALA

by

John R. Davidson

A case study prepared for the Administrator's Development
Seminar and the Development Studies Program, Manpower Development
Division, Agency for International Development, Washington, D. C.,
September, 1976.

The views expressed herein are those of the author only and
should not be attributed to the Agency for International Development.

PREFACE

The purpose of this case study is to familiarize AID personnel with

an experimental project in rural development that reflects the intent of

the "New Directions" mandate contained in the 1973 Foreign Assistance Act.

The experience of this project, it is hoped, will contribute to our know-

ledge of how to design and implement projects aimed at the difficult to

reach rural poor, and particularly the small subsistence farmer. While

all of the results of this project are not yet in, preliminary information

suggests that the Basic Village Education Project in Guatemala has success-

fully utilized radio education to significantly alter the agricultural

knowledge, attitudes, and practices exhibited by the small farmer. This

project has attracted a great deal of attention in Washington and in other

field missions because it is a "controlled" experiment that has an exten-

sive built-in evaluation component which should allow us to measure with

unusual accuracy the impact of this project and its various sub-elements

on the target population. The purpose of this case study is to summarize

the project's experience to date in a manner that will help us become cog-

nizant of the problems and possibilities encountered in trying to carry out

rural development projects.

This case study was researched and written during August and September,

1976. Five days were spent in Guatemala talking to the project staff and

reading project files at the USAID Mission. The Academy for Educational

Development in Washington, D. C., the project contractor the project's

field staff, and the USAID Mission were all most cooperative in providing

information on the project, and their assistance is greatly appreciated.

I. THE ORIGINS OF THE PROJECT

The origins of the Basic Village Education Project date back to

before 1970, when Robert Culbertson became Director of the USAID Mission

in Guatemala. Culbertson arrived in Guatemala with a strong interest in

the possibilities for using radio as an educational tool, an interest

that had developed during his tenure as Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Social and Civic Development in 1968-69. Shortly after his arrival in

Guatemala, therefore, he and his staff began to explore the feasibility

of undertaking a radio education project directed at the rural population.

The AID mission in Guatemala had been placing high priority on rural

development since the late 1960's, and this orientation has continued

during the 1970's. In 1970, the mission received approval for a 23

million dollar rural development sector loan which had evolved over a

period of several years, beginning in 1967 under Deane R. Hinton who was

Mission Director at the time. This loan financed cooperative development,

basic grain and crop production, agricultural marketing programs, assist-

ance to the handicraft industry, and other programs directed at the rural

areas. This loan was notable in that for the first time substantial

resources were being directed at the Highlands, where most of the Indian

population lives.

In the area of education, the existing program consisted of an

eight million dollar rural primary education loan which financed school

construction, teacher training, and the development of a new curriculum

more relevant to the needs of the rural population. This project concen-

trated on the expansion of the formal educational system, which was a

slow and expensive process. While it was useful, it was having only a

limited impact. The problem facing the mission was the realization that

educational opportunity in rural areas was declining due to population

growth, and it was clear that the Guatemalan government did not possess

the resources or the capability to undertake a massive expansion of the

formal educational system. In addition, the adult literacy programs

undertaken in Guatemala by AID, UNESCO, and various missionary groups

had not been very successful.

Radio, on the other hand, offered the possibility of communicating

knowledge to the rural population in a manner that did not rely on literacy

and which could achieve broad coverage at a low unit cost. Through radio

one could communicate knowledge that was useful and relevant to the rural

population, knowledge that they could immediately use to begin improving

the quality of life in the countryside. Given the reality of the govern-

ment's limited capability to deliver agricultural, health, and other

services to the rural areas, radio education appeared as an attractive

and relatively inexpensive alternative to supplement existing efforts in

the areas of education, health, and agriculture.

Combined with this interest in radio, the mission was looking at

the same time at the activities of a missionary priest who was using a

battery-powered slide projector to present lectures on health and nutri-

tion. While he was encountering technical problems with this system, he

was also reporting a high level of interest and very good turnouts at his

presentations. The idea of using a "village monitor" to present visual

materials was then linked to the use of radio, using the monitor as a

supplement. Radio education courses and village monitors utilizing

illustrated materials which did not require literacy (such as "comic-book"

type pamphlets) have been used successfully in several countries, includ-

ing India and Colombia. Less common, however, has been the use of village

monitors in combination with radio. This technique, which combined audio

material with visual material could serve as the functional equivalent of

educational television, which was not a feasible alternative in the

Guatemalan setting.

During 1970, the mission wrote several concept papers developing the

idea of a radio education project directed at the rural population. This

process culminated in the submission to Washington of a proposed project

in the form of an Intensive Review Request. The IRR asked for several

million dollars to conduct a five-year program, which would start out on

a small, experimental basis and gradually expand as progress was made in

learning how to conduct such a project. In early 1971 the IRR was reviewed

in Washington, where the reaction was one of interest mixed with caution.

The prevailing reaction was that it was an intriguing and ambitious pro-

ject, but that it needed to undergo further analysis and development

before it could be funded. At this point, Dr. Stanley Applegate, Chief

of the Education, Science, and Technology Division of the Office of

Development Resources in the Latin American Bureau agreed to utilize

one million dollars from the regional education budget of the Latin Ameri-

can Bureau to fund a carefully controlled, experimental pilot project to

test the relative cost and effectiveness of radio and radio combined with

other means of communication as a means of imparting knowledge to the

rural population of Guatemala.

The Academy for Educational Development in Washington, D. C., received

the contract to perform the feasibility study and later received the con-

tract to implement the project. The Academy sent ten experts in the fields

of education, communication, and the social sciences to Guatemala between

May, 1972, and January, 1973 to conduct feasibility studies. Such factors

as communication delivery systems, demography, geography, the anthropolo-

gical/cultural setting, and the administrative capability of various

government agencies were examined. Conversations were held with the Minis-

tries of Education, Agriculture, and Health to ascertain their willingness

to participate in a radio education project, and the availability of local

resources in the areas of graphic arts, recording and broadcasting was de-

termined.

The feasibility studies concluded that an experimental, pilot project

in radio education directed at rural adults would be a feasible and worth-

while undertaking. They found that considerable expertise in the area of

communications existed in Guatemala, that government ministries were

interested in such a project, and that adequate administrative capability

existed or could be developed for the project. A variety of subject

matter was considered for inclusion in the programming, chiefly in the

areas of health, nutrition, and agriculture. No final determination was

made, however, regarding the specific educational content of the project

and these studies did not develop an experimental design or a concrete

implementation plan. They recommended that the educational radio program-

ming be supplemented with radio which would utilize visual materials (posters

and filmstrips, etc.) and suggested that the project begin in January,

1973 and continue for 18 months.

A Program Agreement was signed with the Ministry of Education in the

spring of 1973, and in May a three-man team (William Bradford, Howard Ray,

and Thomas Rich) was sent to Guatemala to develop a detailed implementation

plan which was completed August 15, 1973. Working in cooperation with the

Ministry of Education and the USAID Mission's Education Officer, they

surveyed and selected sites for the project, developed the experimental

design and evaluation model to be used, and continued to examine the

cultural, organizational, demographic, and agricultural factors that were

shaping the design of the project.

The feasibility studies had envisioned the use of radio to reach

adult illiterates with a broad spectrum of health, nutrition, and agri-

cultural messages but in the course of developing the implementation plan

it was decided to limit the programming content to agriculture. This

decision was based on the conclusion that it would take many years to

evaluate the impact of a health and nutrition program on the rural popula-

tion and the fact that an inadequate infrastructure existed in the health

field. In agriculture, on the other hand, a basic infrastructure of

services was in place (although it was admittedly inadequate) and the

results of an agricultural education project, they felt, could be measured

in a limited period of time i.e., they believed that changes in agricul-

tural practices and production could be measured after two to three years

of programming. Also, since programming capability and resources would

be limited, they did not feel that more than one subject area could be

developed in a meaningful manner (after the program became operational

some health messages were added to the programming with the help of

personnel on loan on a part-time basis from the Ministry of Health, but

their impact is not evaluated).

The team developing the implementation plan also concluded that

more time (three years of programming instead of the 18 months envisioned

in the feasibility studies) and more money ($1.2 million in U.S. grant

funds and $320,000 in matching funds from the Guatemalan government) would

be needed than had been originally estimated. It was also determined that

experimental stations established specifically for the project would be

more suitable than using existing commercial radio stations. By having

its own stations, the project could better maintain the experimental and

control elements of the project design and could achieve greater "locali-

zation" of programming to meet the needs of specific areas. It was also

felt that by establishing their own station of the grounds of the pilot

school in Quezada, it would eventually be integrated into the programs

of the Ministry of Education which sooner or later was expected to utilize

radio in its literacy training programs and in the formal educational system

in general.

The implementation plan called for operations to begin in 1974 in the

Oriente (a Spanish-speaking area) and the next year in the Highlands (a

Quiche-speaking area). This procedure was adopted because less was known

about the agricultural practices prevalent in the Highlands, less agricul-

tural infrastructure existed there, and it constituted a more difficult

cultural environment within which to operate. They also felt that not

enough was known about the special cultural and social situation in the

western Highlands region that might dictate the use of a different approach,

different uses of radio, monitors, etc., and even different styles of mes-

sage programming compared to the Spanish-speaking eastern region. A special

anthropological study of the Quiche-speaking area was therefore recommended

by the planning team as a pre-condition to beginning operations in the

Highlands. Such a study was carried out in the first half of 1974 by Dr.

Robert Carmack of SUNY at Albany. This study was not only of value for

delineating the cultural factors that would have to be taken into account,

but was also useful in selecting sites for the experimental and control

areas.

The first field surveys, which collected the base-line data which

would be used to measure the future impact of project activities, were

conducted in October, 1973. The first BVE radio station, "Radio Quezada

Educativa," began broadcasting in March, 1974.

II. BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TARGET GROUPS

Guatemala is a small, poor, agricultural country of about 5.8 million

people, about half of whom are Indian. About 64% of the population lives

in the rural areas and over 60% of the labor force is engaged in agricul-

ture. The Basic Village Education Project is being undertaken in two

highly different cultural and geographic settings. The first is among the

Spanish-speaking Ladinos or Mestizos of southeastern Guatemala (the

Oriente) and the second is among the Quiche-speaking Indians who make up

80% of the 1.6 million people who live in the central Highlands (the

I
Occidente). Only about 20% of the Quiche-speaking Indians speak Spanish,

and they have historically been exploited by the Ladinos and (until recently)

ignored by the government.

The rural inhabitants of Guatemala suffer from low income and literacy

levels, poor health, and high infant mortality rates. Per capital income

in the rural areas averages about 75-100 dollars annually (compared to a

national per capital income of $406 in 1973). Guatemala has one of the

highest illiteracy rates in Latin America and one of the lowest per capital

school enrollments. The illiteracy rate was estimated to be about 62% in

the early 1960's, but is substantially higher in the rural areas. In 1971,

only 38% of the population between 5-14 was in school. Education is avail-

able to about 65% of the rural population, but only 2% of those who enter

the first grade complete the sixth grade. In the Indian Highlands 79% of

the population over 15 is illiterate, and only 11% of the Indian population

has ever attended school (compared to 18% of all rural inhabit ants and

29% of the national population).2

The majority of Guatemala's approximately 450,000 farms are small

"minifundias." About 40% are less than 1.4 hectares in size, and 90% of

1
A "Ladino" is generally defined as a Guatemalan of whatever racial origin,
generally of Indian or mixed Indian and Spanish descent, who speaks Spanish,
wears western dress, and does not belong to an Indian Community. An "Indian"
is generally defined as one who uses one of the Indian languages or dialects,
wears traditional Indian clothing, and belongs to an Indian Community. The
distinction is thus ethnic and cultural, rather than racial.

2
The BVE Project's base-line study found a literacy rate of 40% among
the farmers in their sample in the Oriente, and a 30% literacy rate among
the Indian farmers in the Highlands.

the farmers own less than seven hectares, and occupy about 20% of the

nation's agricultural lands. Land tenure statistics reveal that 2% of the

farmers own 72% of the land, while 88% of the farmers own 14% usually

the poorest quality, most hilly land. The small farmers grow primarily

corn, beans, and wheat, and to a lesser degree, potatoes and sorghum.

Productivity levels are low (many small farmers in the Highlands average

7-8 bushels of corn per acre) and several studies have shown that yields

can be doubled or tripled with the use of fertilizer, insecticides, and

other inputs. Production increases in the last decade have come primarily

from increasing the area cultivated, and fertilizer use remains low (32

Kg. per cultivated hectare compared to 81 and 132 Kg. in Costa Rica and

El Salvador, respectively). Population growth has increased pressure on

the land, particulraly in the Highlands.

The Guatemalan government possesses a rather limited capability to

deliver basic services (such as health and education) to the rural areas,

and this capability is substantially lower in the Highlands than in the

Oriente. Since 1970, when a five-year development plan placing top

priority on rural development was adopted, the flow of resources to the

rural areas has increased and for the first time significant programs have

been directed to the Indians in the Highlands. Nevertheless, the Indians

remain a very difficult target group to reach with development programs

due to a variety of cultural, linguistic, political, and historical

reasons.

III. THE PROJECT DESIGN

This project is designed to test the effectiveness of radio and

various degrees of personal contact with the small farmer as means of

imparting knowledge about agricultural technology among subsistence

farmers in two different cultural and geographic environments. The first

experimental area is located among the Ladinos of southeastern Guatemala

(the Oriente), while the second is located in the Indian culture of the

western Highlands (the Occidente). The project entails three years of

operations in the Oriente and two years of operations in the Highlands.

Two radio stations were established to implement this.experiment, one in

Quezada (for the Oriente) and another in Momostenango (for the Highlands).

Each station broadcasts eight hours a day, from 5 to 9 a.m., and from

4 to 8 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

Most of the programming on these stations is devoted to music, enter-

tainment, and other types of non-agricultural programming which is neces-

sary to attract and retain a large listening audience. About 20% of the

programming is of an agricultural nature, the core of which is a daily,

30 minute "agricultural magazine" which is broadcast once in the morning

and again in the afternoon. In addition to this, 30 to 40 agricultural

"spot" messages are broadcast throughout the day. These messages are

synchronized with the agricultural cycle so that the appropriate advice

reaches the farmer at the right time during the agricultural year.

Regular features of the agricultural programming include a "radio novel"

called "life in the country," the agricultural "magazine," and a program

called "Let's talk, Mr. Farmer," which answers questions received from

individual farmers. Every Saturday afternoon, the "Radio Forum" is broad-

cast, which contains the agricultural "message of the week."

The Experimental Treatments

The first experimental treatment consists of "radio only." In these

areas the only contact the farmer has with the project is the radio program-

ming which he receives on his radio. Its purpose is to measure the impact

of radio alone. Another experimental treatment utilizes a local village

"monitor" in addition to the radio, whose purpose is to reinforce the

effect of the radio message. The monitor is selected from the local area

and trained for about a month by the project before he begins to perform

his duties. He is assigned to four or five villages containing a total of

about 300-400 families. He visits each village once a week and invites

the farmers to a "radio forum" which he conducts in the evening. He brings

with him a portable cassette tape recorder and plays a 30 minute recorded

message, which is the same message that is being broadcast over the radio

on Saturday. The monitor illustrates the points being made in the recording

with posters and flip-charts and afterwards leads a discussion of the points

covered. The farmers attending the forum receive copies of the posters

and flip-charts in the form of mimeographed sheets, which they keep.

Every Friday the monitor attends an orientation session with a project

agronomist his supervisor and receives the radio forum materials for

the coming week. At this time the monitor reports reactions to the forums

held that week and furnishes information on local crop conditions and any

problems farmers are encountering in his area. He also relays any ques-

tions from farmers which he has not been able to answer to the agronomist.

They will be answered by the agronomist (and researched, if necessary)

and the.farmer will receive the answer the following week when the monitor

returns to his village.

The monitor also conducts some very simple "strip" demonstration

plots with a few selected farmers. In these plots a few rows of a farmer's

field are cultivated using one or two of the practices recommended over

the radio and in the radio forums, practices which do not require the

presence or expertise of an agronomist.

The third type of communication mix utilized in this project adds

a low level of technical assistance to the radio-monitor combination.

A project agronomist works with the monitors and local farmers, conducting

demonstration plots and providing advice to farmers in the area. The ex-

perimental area to which he is assigned contains about 1,000 farmers.

He conducts both "complete" crop demonstrations where an entire "package"

of recommended practices is utilized, and also simplified "partial" demon-

strations which usually utilize only two or three recommended practices.

These partial demonstrations are similar in nature to the "strip" plots

conducted by the monitors.

The agronomist periodically attends radio forums conducted in his

assigned area, and also serves as an important source of feedback to pro-

ject staff. He prepares a weekly report which summarizes weather and crop

conditions, grain prices in local markets, the status of the demonstration

plots, and the coordination of activities among other agencies operating

in the area (e.g., is credit available from BANDESA, the government credit-

granting agency, etc.). This report also contains an analysis of the radio

forum of the week. Project staff can then act upon the problems identified

and take the information reported into account in their future programming.

An additional experimental treatment was added in 1975, after the

project was well underway. It utilizes a monitor operating in an area

where the radio signal is not received (in a portion of one of the control

areas). This treatment was added in order to ascertain the effect of the

monitor alone apart from that achieved by the radio and will allow

comparison of the impact of "radio only" vs. "monitor only" in addition

to "radio only" vs. "radio-monitor."

Finally, "control" areas have been identified in both the Oriente

and the Highlands which are representative of the region and similar to

the experimental areas (i.e., they have similar cropping patterns, a com-

parable level of technology, etc.). Information on crop yields, farmer

income and knowledge, etc. is collected from these areas and used for

comparative purposes. Two portions of the control areas are now used for

the "monitor only" treatment described above.

The Evaluation Design

This project was designed with an extensive built-in evaluation com-

ponent that calls for the collection of base-line data and the continuous

measurement of the impact of project activities on the target population

of small farmers throughout the life of the project. The evaluation com-

ponent is being carried out by a team from the University of South Florida

(Professors Edgar Nesman and Thomas Rich). The evaluation component is

unusual in that unlike most AID projects, base-line data was collected in

both experimental and control areas prior to initiating project activities.

Both the experimental and the control areas (in each of the two different

cultural settings) are then retested throughout the life of the project.

This evaluation design should allow a more precise determination of just

what effect the project has had on the target population than is usually

possible.

The evaluation design calls for the collection of a variety of infor-

mation about small farmers' income, diet, consumption of consumer goods,

etc., which will permit a comparison of the living standards measured at

the beginning of the project with those observed at its completion. Infor-

mation is also collected regarding crop yields and cropping patterns, etc.,

which will allow changes in these areas to be measured over time. The

small farmer's knowledge of various agricultural practices is ascertained,

as are his attitudes towards these practices. Finally, the actual practices

farmers utilize are also determined and changes along these dimensions are

measured throughout the life of the project. The expectations of the evalua-

tion team (based on the literature about the communication and diffusion of

agricultural technology) are that they will first observe changes in the

farmer's level of knowledge, then changes in his attitudes towards new

agricultural practices, and finally, after two to three years of program-

ming, changes in the actual practices he uses.

The mechanism utilized to obtain the types of information outlined

above is the personal interview. The evaluation design calls for a total

of 10,250 interviews among 1500 farmers during the life of the project,

which will be conducted in 49 villages in 14 experimental and control

areas located in the Oriente and the Highlands. After completing the

initial base-line surveys, the design calls for annual surveys which

15

MEXICO

l lMAl MOMOSTENANGO
CD .IC.C.AS EN .... HONDURAS

GUAT EM LA R=RADIO ONLY
RM=RADIO-MONITOR
s[ IRMA=R ADIO-MONITOR-
S~ JUTIAPA AGRONOMIST
C=CONTROL
)ED A CM=CONTROL-MONITOR
QuiA=VE RADIO STATION
YUPILTEPEQUI RMA +
El SAyt DOR

Figure 1. Basic Village Education Project experimental and
control areas, 1975-76.

duplicate the base-line surveys and six time-sample surveys per year in

which 20% of the sample of small farmers are interviewed to monitor the

impact of the various elements of the project. Finally, audience surveys

are periodically conducted to measure the size of the listening audience,

its characteristics, and its reaction to various types of programming.

The Formulation and Production of Program Materials

The OVE project staff consists of four U. S. citizens (Field Program

Leader, Deputy Field Program Leader, and the Field Evaluation Supervisors

for the Oriente and the Highlands) and about 75 Guatemalans.3 This staff

is organized into an agricultural production unit, a materials production

unit, and evaluation team, and the group of field monitors. The agricul-

tural unit, which is headed by two agronomists, collects agricultural data,

formulates recommendations used in the project, trains the monitors, con-

ducts the demonstration plots, and provides extension services to the

"Radio-Monitor-Agronomist" experimental areas. The production unit con-

sists of script-writers, artists, and recording technicians who produce

the radio programming, the radio forums, and the illustrated materials

used in the project. The evaluation team pre-tests questionnaires, trains

interviewers, and conducts the field surveys which are coded in Guatemala

and sent to the University of South Florida for data processing and analysis

by Doctors Nesman and Rich. Finally, there are the field monitors who con-

duct the radio forums in the experimental villages.

3
This figure includes all full-time and part-time staff from the Minis-
tries of Agriculture and Education (which are on loan to the project) as
well as the BVE staff, which includes the field monitors, radio station
personnel, production and recording staff, etc.

After the project sites were selected, the project agronomists collec-

ted a variety of data on cropping practices, seed selection, use of ferti-

lizers, crop yields, and other agricultural characteristics of these areas.

This information was then used to develop the technical content of the

agricultural recommendations as well as the strategy for their presenta-

tion. In formulating the recommendations, the agricultural staff operated

under the assumption that in order for the messages to be effective, they

would have to be presented in a style and at a level consistent with pre-

sent levels of knowledge and attitudes exhibited by the farmers. They

also believed that the messages had to relate specifically to presently

used agricultural practices as a point of departure for future improve-

ment. No attempt has been made to alter the farmers' cropping patterns.

The primary goal of the recommendations presented has been to help the

farmer improve his ability to produce corn, beans, wheat, and sorghum -

crops he is currently cultivating.

With these objectives in mind, the technical data was organized into

an "agricultural calendar" which contains a total of 36 recommended agri-

cultural practices ranging from selection of seed and use of fertilizers

to crop storage methods. This message calendar is synchronized with the

agricultural year so that the proper message reaches the farmer at the

appropriate time during the agricultural cycle. In addition to the annual

message calendars (one for each region), the agricultural staff develops

three other documents: a book of technical information, a guide to script-

writers on how to use this information, and a bi-weekly programming strategy

document. The efficient functioning of the project depends upon effective

interaction and coordination among the agricultural staff, the script-writers,

the artists, and the recording and production unit. The project develops

its technologically-based message programming in an impressively short

period of time. It takes about six months to gather the agricultural infor-

mation, develop the calendar, develop a message strategy, clear all these

steps with the Ministry of Agriculture, and write and produce the scripts.

About one month elapses between the time the script-writers receive their

assignment and the day the message is broadcast or used in a radio forum.

The script-writers confer with the agricultural technicians once a week to

ensure that the scripts accurately convey the intended message. Once the

script is completed, it is submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture for

approval, and then sent on to the recording and production unit to be re-

corded on the cassette tapes for the radio forums and for use over the radio.

In the Highlands, of course, the scripts and tapes must be produced in Quiche -

the local Indian language.

The Role of the Guatemalan Government

Successful implementation of the BVE project requires that several

ministries and agencies of the Guatemalan government contribute funds,

staff, and services to the project and effectively coordinate their acti-

vities with one another and the BVE staff. The project implementation

plan calls for the establishment of a close and coordinated working rela-

tionship between the Ministries of Education and Agriculture in the area

of project-related activities. Of particular importance to the success of

the project is the availability of agricultural credit (through BANDESA,

Guatemala's agricultural credit bank) and technical assistance (through

DIGESA, the Guatemalan extension service) to farmers living in the experi-

mental and control areas selected for the project. Also important, of

course, is the timely contribution of matching funds, staff and other

services necessary to implement the project.

The feasibility study undertaken by AED explored the willingness

of Guatemalan agencies and ministries to participate in and contribute

to the project, and it examined the capability of the Ministries of

Agriculture and Education to cooperate and coordinate their activities

relating to the BVE project. The study found interest in and support for

the project in these ministries and concluded that effective coordination

of their activities would be a difficult but possible task to achieve.

In order to accomplish this coordination, the three-man team which

developed the implementation plan initially considered creation of an inter-

ministerial committee. This idea was soon dropped, however, after they

concluded that it would probably not function effectively. They recommended

instead a less formal coordination process at the level of the operating

agencies actually involved in the project, with primary operating respon-

sibility assigned to one Ministry.

By November, 1972, the project's chief linkages were with the Ministry

of Education and it was decided to house the project in the Department of

Literacy Training and Adult Education, headed by Professor Mario Dardon.

In early 1973, a Project Agreement was signed with the Ministry of Education

and Professor Dardon became Project Director. The Ministry of Agriculture

Was not a signatory to this agreement. The project's relationship to the

agricultural agencies remained informal in nature. In July, 1973, DIGESA

(the extension service) appointed a liaison committee to work with the pro-

ject and agreed to coordinate the activities of all agricultural agencies

involved in the project.

IV. KEY ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROJECT

Several characteristics of this project its ambitious and rigorous

operational and evaluative design, the difficult cultural setting in which

half of it is being implemented, the role to be performed by various agencies

of the Guatemalan government, and the manner in which it was initially formu-

lated raised several key questions or issues which appear to be critical

areas determining the project's outcome and impact.

1. How has the behavior and performance of the Guatemalan government

affected implementation of the project? How did it react to the project

proposal, what has been its level of support, and was inter-ministerial

cooperation achieved? Experience has shown that projects which depend upon

the cooperation and coordination of several ministries encounter many more

problems than those that deal with only one ministry. As integrated sector

loans become more important, however, the issue of how one achieves inter-

ministry cooperation and coordination becomes more salient.

4
See Judith Tendler, "Inter-country Evaluation of Small Farmer Organizations:
Final Report." Report prepared for the Office of Development Programs of the
Latin American Bureau of AID, July, 1976.

2. How successful has project implementation been in the Highlands?

Has the project been able to duplicate the experimental design followed

in the Oriente in this different cultural setting? The 1974 PROP, for

example, stated that radio forums would probably not be feasible in the

Highlands due to cultural differences and the Indians' work habits which

make evening meetings difficult.5

3. Has the project been able to follow the rigorous social science

methods called for in the project design? Have they been able to conduct

a "controlled" experiment (preventing "contamination," etc.) within these

target groups? Can the large number of variables affecting the agricultural

production process be controlled or held constant in such a manner that the

differential impact of radio, radio-monitor, and radio-monitor-agronomist

can be measured effectively?

4. Has the built-in feedback and evaluation design, which calls for

continuous measurement of project impact, made a substantial difference

in the implementation process? Has it generated on-going modifications

that have proven to be important determinents of project success and impact?

5. If the project is successful, can it be replicated in Guatemala or

elsewhere, and by whom and with what resources? How dependent is this pro-

ject on outside technology and technical assistance? Has a cadre of

Guatemalans been trained who can carry on after the contractor leaves and

operate a larger application of this pilot project?

5
See "Basic Village Education Guatemala (PROP) 2/1/74, Project No.
598-15-690-551, page 4.

22

These are some of the issues raised by this project. Let us now

examine the implementation experience to date, keeping in mind the above

mentioned questions.

V. THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS IN THE ORIENTED

Programming was initiated in the Oriente in late March, 1974. During

the first year of operations, the Quezada Valley was utilized as the con-

trol area and the area around Yupiltepeque served as the control area.

In early 1975, the power of the radio transmitter was increased from 100

to 500 watts, and the original control area Yupiltepeque was converted

into an additional experimental area and a new control area around Ipala

was established.

Radio Quezada quickly attracted a large listening audience and became

the most popular station in the valley, with audience surveys reporting

that between 93% and 100% of those persons with access to a radio regularly

listen to the BVE station. The first audience survey conducted in Yupilte-

peque after that area began receiving the signal in early 1975, found that

only 46% of those persons with access to radio were listening to Radio

Quezada. Feedback from the field indicated that this lower listening

rate was due to the lack of community identification with the radio

station among residents of the area. In an effort to correct this situa-

tion, six "letter drops" were established in the Yupiltepeque area which

allowed listeners to send letters to the station (without paying postage)

and the station read more letters from this area and mentioned more events,

etc. By June 1975, audience surveys were reporting a 91% listening rate,

and the average for 1976 has been about 85%. There has been some overflow

of the signal to the Ipala area, where 12-15% report listening to Radio

Quezada, mostly on an occasional basis.

Audience surveys have consistently found that the agricultural

programming is proving to be very popular. Seventy-six percent of the

Quezada Valley listeners and 56% of the Yupiltepeque listeners cited

the agricultural content and the "good advice" they receive as the

principal reason for listening to the BVE station. The "Agricultural

Magazine" was cited as the most popular program in both areas.

An important source of feedback to the project staff (in addition

to the audience surveys) is the large volume of mail received by the

station. Radio Quezada has received over 30,000 letters, averaging

more than 1,000 letters a month (the highest one-month figure is 2,600,

for December, 1975). Most of these letters contain requests for music

or for announcements of events, birthdays, and meetings, etc. The

number of letters asking questions relating to agriculture, however, is

gradually increasing. These questions are researched and answered on

the air during the "Let's Talk, Mr. Farmer" program. The project staff

is encouraged by this trend, which indicates that increasing numbers of

farmers are placing their trust in this source of information.

The monitors in the Oriente report a generally adequate level of

interest and response to the forums among farmers. Attendance at radio

forums has averaged about 11 to 12 farmers per meeting. The figures were

initially higher than this, but attendance declined as the novelty wore

off. Attendance has now stabilized at about 11 farmers per forum. While

this figure represents a relatively low percentage of the total potential

audience, the BVE staff believes that monitor contacts with individual

farmers and intra-community diffusion by those who do attend the forums

are effectively spreading the information presented.

While most of the forums are developed as part of the "agricultural

calendar" for the region, the monitors have attempted to adapt them to

the changing problems and conditions encountered in the field. When an

outbreak of inch-worms plagued the project's experimental areas, the

monitors asked that a forum be produced on the subject. This was done,

and meetings were held with the farmers to instruct them in the use of

insecticides appropriate for controlling the outbreak. These meetings

were well attended and generated a good response on the part of the

farmers. Another forum which generated an above-average response dealt

with production costs. It was presented in November, 1975, as farmers

were preparing to harvest their crops. At this forum special worksheets

developed by the project staff were used to help farmers calculate the

total cost of the inputs they had in producing their crops. These figures

could then be used to estimate the amount of profit they would make given

current market prices. This was a totally new experience for many of the

participants, who responded with great interest (many participants later

offered to share their calculations with the BVE staff for use in the

project's cost/benefit study).

Only minor operational problems have been encountered in this aspect

of the project. One monitor assigned to the Yupiltepeque area proved to

be unsatisfactory and had to be replaced, which left one of the "Radio-

Monitor" experimental areas without coverage for two months, during May

and June of 1975. The monitors also were inexperienced in writing reports

and providing feedback to the agronomists, and therefore had to be taught

how to make and record observations and how to write feedback reports.

In the Spring of 1976, many monitors began to report frequent malfunctions

in their cassette recorders, some of which had been in continuous service

since March, 1974. Additional preventitive maintenance and more frequent

rotation with reserve machines has alleviated the problem.

The crop demonstrations conducted in the Oriente in 1974 the first

year of operations were not very successful. Most of the 1974 demonstra-

tion plots were "high-production" plots which utilized a complete "package"

of techniques, and in many cases these complete plots proved to be too

ambitious an undertaking. In 1975, only a few complete plots were conduc-

ted and about 16 "strip" demonstrations were undertaken, in which only two

practices fertilization and insect control were applied to a few rows

of corn, beans, or sorghum in a cooperating farmer's field. The 1975

demonstrations proved to be far more successful. In two of the demonstra-

tion plots, the average net income from the crops produced was $285 per

hectare compared to about $125 per hectare in surrounding fields which

used prevailing practices to obtain prevailing yields. The 1976 crop

demonstrations were again modified in light of past experience. The

total number of sites was reduced to ten, and the "strip" plots were

eliminated. The current emphasis is on a simplified version of the high

production plots, in which the number of crop combinations has been re-

duced and the package of techniques used has been made less complex.

As noted earlier, an important element of the project design was

the provision of credit to the small farmer through BANDESA, the Guatemalan

agricultural credit bank. When programming began in the Quezada Valley in

early 1974, some credit was available to farmers in the experimental and

control areas. Although the level of available services was inadequate,

it was at about the same level in both areas and about the same proportion

of the demand was being met in each area. It was expected that the BVE

project activities would increase the level of demand in the experimental

areas and DIGESA, the extension service which processes the credit appli-

cations for BANDESA, had promised to try to meet any increase in the

demand in the project areas.

As expected, demand for credit increased greatly in the Quezada

Valley in 1974. As a result, DIGESA had to establish an office in

Quezada and increase its staff in the area from one to five agricultural

promoterss." There was no need to increase operations in the control

area, where demand for credit remained about the same. During the first

half of 1975, DIGESA experienced an even heavier demand for credit and

could not process all the applications being received. The "Radio-Monitor"

area in the Quezada Valley generated a particularly high level of demand,

and at the time when planting activities were about to begin 23 farmers

had still not been visited by a DIGESA agronomist (a prerequisite to

obtaining credit). The BVE Coordinating Committee arranged for DIGESA

to temporarily assign another agronomist to the area to process the

backlog. Later, however, the regional director of DIGESA asked the

project to cease its radio messages on how to apply for credit until

they could catch up. Since it was clear that DIGESA did not have the

capability to process all the applications it had already received,

the BVE staff complied with the request.

In 1976, the number of farmers receiving credit from BANDESA dropped

significantly below the 1975 figure. This was due to the fact that BANDESA

had imposed more stringent borrowing requirements for non-landowners as a

result of re-payment problems encountered in previous years. Also, the

price of fertilizer declined sharply after the end of the 1975 crop season,

and perhaps fewer farmers needed to resort to credit in 1976 to purchase

their inputs. In addition, the number of DIGESA agents in the area has

declined due to turnovers in personnel.

Operations in the Oriente have also been affected by drought and

fertilizer shortages. In 1974, the Oriente suffered the worst drought in

ten years, and serious drought was again experienced in 1976. A project

staff member stated in August that many farmers in the Oriente may not

harvest any corn at all this fall. In addition, the doubling of fertilizer

prices during 1974-75 resulted in a sharp decline in its availability and

its use declined. The drought has thus affected farmer incomes, which makes

it more difficult to purchase fertilizer and other inputs which are recom-

mended by the BVE project. External economic factors and weather conditions

have clearly caused great fluctuations in crop yields and in the avail-

ability and price of critical inputs.

Other events that have affected project operations include the earth-

quake of February, 1976, which disrupted project operations for about a

month, and delays in contributions from the Guatemalan government. In

1975, for example, there was a five month delay in the arrival of an agro-

nomist from the Ministry of Agriculture who was to serve as the project's

agronomist for the "Radio-Monitor-Agronomist" areas of the Oriente. He

was supposed to arrive in early 1975, but was not assigned to the project

until June. As a result, the project had to send one of its staff agrono-

mists to the area on a part-time basis until the DIGESA agronomist arrived.

Consequently, the "RMA" areas in the Oriente received only part-time ser-

vices from an agronomist during the spring of 1975.

VI. THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS IN THE HIGHLANDS

The BVE staff found it far more difficult to implement the project

in the Highlands than in the Oriente. The Indians of the Highlands are

very resistent to change and suspicious of outsiders.6 Many unforeseen

problems have been encountered in transferring the project to the Highlands,

and as a result they have not been able to duplicate exactly the implemen-

tation and evaluation design that is being followed in the Oriente. The

project staff has had to become very sensitive to the Indian culture and

alter their programming and evaluation activities to take into account the

behavior patterns encountered in this environment.

The BVE staff realized, of course, that the Highlands would be a more

difficult environment within which to operate and as we noted, they decided

to acquire a year of operational experience in the Oriente before beginning

operations in the Highlands. The project was scheduled to begin operating

in the Highlands in January, 1975, but several problems caused an eight-

month delay and broadcasting in the Highlands did not commence until August

29, 1975. Because of the nature of the agricultural cycle, this meant that

6
For example, the base-line survey found that 30% of the Ladino farmers
had made changes in their agricultural practices during the past few years
but only 10% of the Indian farmers reported any changes in their production
methods.

for all practical purposes the project had lost an entire year, for they

could not hope to influence agricultural practices before the spring of

1976.

The project staff learned early that extensive and frequent consulta-

tion with local authorities at all levels from the governor of the depart-

ment on down to the mayors and local village officials was necessary in

order to operate within this environment. The initiation of operations in

the Highlands was delayed for three months, for example, due to the diffi-

culties encountered in obtaining a site for the radio station. Lengthy

negotiations were required to obtain the approval of local authorities for

the site in Momostenango.

The project was then further delayed when the Guatemalan government

held up its contributions of matching funds for five months. This action

in turn led to delays in the hiring and training of local personnel who

would implement the program in the Highlands. Radio Momostenango began

broadcasting August 29, 1975, and the monitors initiated their activities

in October, 1975. As a result of these delays, it will not be possible to

measure the impact of the project on agricultural practices in the High-

lands until 1977.

Radio Momostenango, like Radio Quezada, quickly attracted a large

listening audience. The base-line survey revealed that about 50% of

the population of the Highlands regularly listened to the radio (compared

to about 80% in the Oriente). An audience survey conducted in May, 1976,

found a generally high level of "listenership" but they also found a wide

variation in the size of the listening audience from one community to

another. In the Momostenango area, they found that between 90-100% of

those persons who regularly listen to the radio listened to the project

station. In the area around Totonicapan, however, the rate was about

35%. This wide variation appears to be due largely to a strong feeling

of community identification with the station in Momostenango and the

absence of such a feeling in Totonicapan. In fact, project staff members

report that people in Totonicapan actually feel hostility towards the

Momostenangans and therefore listen to other stations in their area.

Signal "leakage" to the control areas has been a more serious

problem in the Highlands than in the Oriente. In the Highlands control

area of Chichicastenango they found that about 30% of those who regularly

listen to the radio (about 40% of the population) listen to the project

station.

The radio forums in the Highlands were initially well attended, which

was probably due to the novelty of this new phenomenon and the curiosity

it generated. Attendance soon began to decline, however, and feedback

from the monitors indicated that the Indians felt that they were being

"talked down to" and that the forums presented the material in a way that

suggested that the Indians did "not know how to grow corn." In response

to this decline, script-writers were told to alter the tone of the forums

and to try and emphasize new techniques such as contour plowing that

the Indians were not familiar with. Script-writers also began to attend

radio forums occasionally in order to observe the impact of their materials

on the audience.

Problems were also encountered in the area of the illustrated materials

- the posters and flip-charts which the monitor used to illustrate the

points emphasized in the radio forum. They quickly learned that the message

must be presented in a manner that precisely reflects local practice in

order to be understood and accepted by the audience. Posters showing

a man with a hat that was not typical of the local area had to be altered,

as did a hoe handle that was longer than the type used by the Indians.

The project staff also learned, for example, that the use of humor was

not an effective means of communicating with the Indian farmer about a

subject as important to him as producing corn to feed his family. In

short, staff artists had to become extremely sensitive to local attitudes

and customs.7 In late 1975, a materials testing unit was established within

the project, which focuses almost entirely on the development and testing

of graphic materials prior to their use in the field.

As a result of these improvements and modifications, attendance at

the radio forums has increased. During 1976, average attendance at the

forums was about 8-9 farmers, which is about 25% below the average atten-

dance of 11-12 recorded in the Oriente. This lower attendance rate is due

first to the fact that it is more difficult for an outsider to come into an

Indian village and attract farmers to a meeting than it is in the Oriente.

7
Feedback from their illustrated materials has taught the staff that in
order to be understood, drawings must be well done, accurate, realistic,
and simple. "Stick" or silhouetted figures, most diagrams and "thought
balloons," and pictures with depth and dimension were often not understood.
They also report that farmers who are not literate have been able to find
someone to read them the messages contained in the illustrated materials,
including the two "historietas," or comic-book type pamphlets which have
been produced by the project for mass distribution.

Secondly, a higher proportion (63%) of small farmers in the Highlands

migrate to other areas to work (usually on coffee plantations) for several

months a year than do the small farmers of the Oriente, where only 44% work

outside the area. The small farmer in the Highlands is thus harder to

reach because of cultural reasons and because of the higher rate of labor

migration.

No crop demonstrations were conducted in the Highlands during 1975,

since programming did not begin until late August and the monitors were

not in place until October. In 1976, eight demonstration plots were

established, one in each of the Radio-Monitor-Agronomist communities. No

demonstration plots were established in the Radio-Monitor communities due

to the less solid information base about which package of techniques to

use, and the monitors' lack of experience in conducting crop demonstrations.

Corn was the principal crop at all the sites, and a fairly complete package

of techniques and practices were utilized. A short-season variety of corn

was used, which allowed a second crop of beans or chiles to be planted in

the same plot in the same year. This was an entirely new practice in this

area and generated a great deal of interest among farmers.

The most serious operational problem the project has encountered in

the Highlands concerns the reaction of the local population to the inter-

views and surveys required by the evaluation design. We have noted that

the evaluation design calls for 10,000 interviews with 1500 farmers over

the life of the project. The base-line survey, the annual surveys, the

six time-sample surveys per year, and the audience reaction surveys collec-

tively constitute an ambitious use of the personal interview technique.

This means that villages in the experimental areas can expect interviewers

to visit them several times a year, which is an unprecedented presence of

outsiders coming in to seek detailed information about the Indians' lives,

crops, incomes, and eating habits, etc. In June of 1976, events occurred

in the Jutacaj area which suggested that the local population was quickly

becoming "saturated" and resistant to the intrusions of the interviewers,

and for a time it appeared that the continuation of the project in the

Highlands was threatened.

In May of 1976, the project conducted a survey to measure the size

of its audience in the Jutacaj area. Then in June, a Guatemalan govern-

ment official came into the area and conducted a survey which asked ques-

tions concerning land ownership a sensitive issue. This official stayed

at a BVE monitor's house while he was in the area, and consequently he was

immediately (though mistakenly) perceived by the local population as part of

the BVE project. When the monitor set out a few days later to conduct a

time-sample survey, he encountered resistance. Local farmers refused to

participate, and the monitor had to leave the area.

This problem was resolved only after a series of meetings with local

officials and two mass meetings with the farmers (with only indigenous

BVE staff members present at the second one). They explained to the farmers

that the surveys were needed to "make the radio better" and asked their

advice on how they could best go about pursuing their objectives. As a

result of these meetings, several changes in project operating procedures

were agreed to in order to regain the cooperation of the farmers. First,

they agreed to eliminate the time-sample surveys, in which a different 20%

of the farmers in each experimental area were surveyed each month for six

months of the year. The Indians could not understand why some and only

some farmers were being interviewed. In the future, therefore, any survey

conducted will include all of the farmers in any given village.

Secondly, they agreed to eliminate questions relating to diet, con-

sumption of consumer goods, and other "personal" questions. The Indians

objected to many of these questions and could not understand why BVE inter-

viewers came back in the summer of 1976 to ask the same questions they had

asked previously in the base-line survey. They had already told the inter-

viewers, for example, that they ate tortillas, and could not understand why

they wanted to ask them again. These questions will be asked in 1977,

however, (at the end of the project) which will provide longitudinal data

to compare to the base-line information collected in 1975. This will allow

the University of Florida evaluation team to measure any changes in living

standards that have occurred during the life of the project.

Third, the Indians asked that all BVE staff members carry official

identification cards so that they will know they are connected with the

radio station. This was easily done.

Fourth, the radio forums are now presented before a group of local

officials each Sunday, prior to their being broadcast over the radio the

following Saturday. This courtesy of informing the local power structure

on a continuous basis will, it is hoped, prevent the growth of any feelings

that the monitor constitutes a potential threat to local authority figures.

The monitor constitutes, after all, a new type of influence in these villages.

He is salaried and possesses tape recorders and other equipment that sets

him apart from the average village resident. He also has ties to outside

groups (even though the station broadcasts in the Indian's own language

it is well know that "foreigners" own the station) and local community

leaders may fear that he will become an influential force in the community.

Fifth, the Indian farmers agreed to cooperate fully in future

surveys, but refused to be paid for it and returned the dollar they had

been paid for participating in the 1975 base-line survey. The Indians

apparently felt that this payment created a sense of indebtedness or

obligation which they wished to avoid.

These meetings and the actions taken by the project staff appear

to have cleared the air and the project is now proceeding with the full

cooperation of farmers in the area. Indeed, BVE staff members report

that attendance at the radio forums has increased significantly since

the above described events occurred and that a group of farmers have re-

quested that a forum on potato growing be produced and offered some of

their land for a demonstration plot. A radio forum on potato growing has

been and the demonstration plot is now operational.

When the BVE project began operating in the Highlands, little credit

and virtually no technical assistance was available in project areas through

BANDESA and DIGESA. These agencies have increased the level of services

8
All survey respondents in both areas had been paid for participating in
the surveys to compensate for time lost in the fields. A dollar represents
-on the average one day's wage in the agricultural sector in the Highlands.
In the Oriente, where wages are higher but communications are better and
less time was lost because of travel to and from the interview, seventy-
five cents was the amount of payment.

9
A BVE staff member cites a rumor circulating at this time that the pay-
ments were for their land, which would be taken away from them eventually.

10
The base-line survey found, for example, that only 3.6% of the farmers
reported any contact with an agronomist during the previous year.

provided to some degree, but the current level remains inadequate.

Given the difficult cultural setting within which this half of the

project is being undertaken, implementation has proceeded rather well.

Despite the fear expressed in the PROP that radio forums would not be

feasible in the Highlands, they have been conducted successfully and

attendance is only 25% below that found in the Oriente despite the

higher rate of seasonal migration found in the Highlands. The feedback

mechanisms have been well used by the project staff, who have effectively

adapted their operations to the local environment. While the changes in

the evaluation procedures have caused some frustration on the part of the

University of South Florida evaluation team, these changes do not appear

to prevent an adequate evaluation of the project's impact since an end-of-

project survey will be conducted in 1977. Generally, the experimental

design has been kept intact. The radio station has attracted a large

audience, and the monitors and agronomist are performing their duties as

planned.

VII. The Role of the Guatemalan Government

Successful implementation of the BVE project, we have noted, rested

upon a timely and adequate contribution of funds, staff and services and

on effective cooperation and coordination between the Ministry of Educa-

tion and the Ministry of Agriculture. The manner in which this project

was designed and undertaken, however, appears to have affected the early

reactions of government agencies towards the project and the initial

degree of support provided. The BVE project was conceived and designed

by the AID Mission and the Academy for Educational Development. While

several government ministries were consulted during the feasibility

studies and the development of the implementation plan, there was rela-

tively little Guatemalan government input into the project. Dr. Howard

Ray, the project director, reports that because of the manner in which

the project was initially undertaken, they encountered some initially

"cool" attitudes towards it. Dr. Ray reports some initial "footdragging"

within the Ministry of Education was, he feels, partially due to their

feeling that the project was "being pushed on them." Also, while the

Minister of Agriculture was interested in the project he did not want

to become too closely identified with it until it proved to be workable.

Once the project was underway, however, these initial attitudes quickly

dissipated and the Ministry of Education became a strong advocate of

the project and is now planning a national program based on the BVE

experiment.

In the Ministry of Agriculture, a similar reaction occurred -

although for different reasons. The Program Agreement, we will recall,

was signed with the Ministry of Education and not the Ministry of

Agriculture, even through the latter was expected to contribute important

services and inputs to the project. This action created some hard feelings

within the Ministry of Agriculture. Nevertheless, in July, 1973, a BVE-

Ministry of Agriculture Coordinating Committee was created when DIGESA (the

extension service) appointed a liaison committee to work with the project.

This committee also exhibited an initially "cool" attitude towards the

project and indulged in several months of "fence-sitting." After it real-

ized, however, that the Ministry of Education was not trying to compete

with it or intrude into its jurisdiction, smooth and effective working

relationships were established. The members of the committee gradually

came to view the project as "our project" and have contributed staff and

services as best as they could given their limited resources.

The project thus achieved smooth working relationships with the

Ministries of Education and Agriculture, and obtained the strong personal

support of both Ministers (as well as the support of the Planning Council)

during the first eight months of operations. These effective working

relationships have grown stronger during the life of the project and have

survived changes in personnel at both the ministerial and the agency level.

In January, 1976, for example, personnel changes at the Ministry of

Agriculture resulted in the replacement of the members of the liaison

committee. Good working relationships have been maintained, however, and

these changes have not adversely affected the functioning of the project.

The project's relationship to DIGESA was somewhat institutionalized

by the signing of a "letter of understanding" in May, 1975. This letter

continued existing arrangements and outlined additional obligations by

both parties to the agreement. The Ministry of Agriculture agreed to

assign two agronomists to the project, which became the field agronomists

in the Oriente and the Highlands. The project, in turn, agreed to provide

training and orientation to DIGESA personnel in the use of the illustrated

materials developed by the project. Selected materials have been made

available for DIGESA's use, and it has agreed not to use them in the pro-

ject's control areas. This agreement reflects the fact that smooth working

relationships between the project and the ministry have been facilitated by

the cooperation and assistance the project has provided to the Ministry.

The BVE stations, for example, regularly make announcements about Ministry

of Agriculture activities, when extension personnel will be in different

communities, etc., and they also cooperated with the Ministry in develop-

ing a set of responses to the drought suffered in 1974. Indeed, Dr. Ray

believes that their working relationships with the Ministry have worked

out better under the present system than they would have had a formal Pro-

gram Agreement been signed with the Ministry. While the lack of a formal

agreement may have caused problems initially, in retrospect Dr. Ray feels

it has turned out to be an advantage in that it has allowed the evolution

of a cooperative relationship based on mutual assistance which on the one

hand provided needed inputs to the project while at the same time per-

mitting the BVE staff to retain complete control over the design and imple-

mentation of the experiment.

In spite of the effective working relationships described above and

the personal support of the two relevant ministers, the project has

suffered continuously from irregular and inadequate contributions of

matching funds from the Guatemalan government. The funds have been slow

in coming and far below agreed upon levels (the 1974 PROP lists a total

Guatemalan contribution of $300,000 over the life of the project). While

this situation is certainly not unique or unusual either in Guatemala

or elsewhere in Latin America the project director feels that some of the

delays they have encountered can again be traced to the manner in which

the project was initially presented to the Guatemalan government. The

Guatemalan budgetary process operates on a calendar year basis, and pro-

ject funds were not approved in time to be included in the 1974 budget

as a separate and identifiable project. Funds received, therefore, had

to be shifted from other areas. For calendar year 1975, the government

agreed to contribute $100,000, but these funds were held up for unknown

reasons for five months in the Ministry of Education, and did not become

available until May, 1975.11 The full amount was not received, however,

and contributions have continued to fall far below expected levels.

In addition to funds and staff, the other critical input to be fur-

nished by the government was credit and technical assistance to farmers

in project areas through BANDESA and DIGESA. Both these agencies have

made a conscious effort to respond to the demands placed upon them by

the project. They have had to operate, of course, within the confines

of their limited budget and staff (DIGESA had a total of 78 extension

agents for the entire country in 1973). While they have increased their

presence in both project areas, more services have been provided in the

Oriente than in the Highlands, and the level is still inadequate in both

areas. BANDESA streamlined its credit application procedures in response

to the demand generated by the project, but tightened up their lending

procedures after experiencing repayment problems.

We have noted that the government's initial coolness and neutrality

towards this project has evolved into strong support not only within

the Ministries of Education and Agriculture, but also in the National

Planning Council. As a result of the government's participation in this

11
It has been speculated that the funds were held up by persons within
the Ministry of Education who felt they had been ignored and had not been
consulted adequately in developing the project, or that it was related to
internal bureaucratic struggles relating to the autonomy and power of the
Department of Adult Literacy and Training, where the project is housed.

project, it is planning a large-scale expanded version of the Basic Village

Education project as part of its 1975-79 development plan, which is being

supported (and funded) by AID, the Inter-American Development Bank, UNESCO,

and the Guatemalan government. The government is utilizing the Academy for

Educational Development to develop and plan this new project and expects to

also utilize the Guatemalans who have been trained through the BVE project.

Unlike the pilot project, the government is participating fully in the de-

sign of the project indeed, they were the initiators in this case. In

fact, BVE staff members report that the government's initial proposals

called for a massive project that would require over 1,000 monitors, which

the BVE staff has been trying to scale down to a more manageable size.

The desire of the government to launch a large-scale radio education

project modeled after the BVE project raises the question of whether a

trained cadre of Guatemalans now exists to undertake an operational program

after the BVE experiment ends in late 1977. Dr. Ray, the Field Program

Leader for the Academy for Educational Development, feels that the project

has trained a group of people who can carry on after the contractor's staff

has left. Whether this pilot project can be expanded to a national, massive

program is, however, another question. For a variety of understandable

reasons, inlcuding political reasons, there is great pressure to undertake

a large program. This threatens not only to strain the limited skills and

resources developed thus far, but the available impact data suggests that

"local and personalized programming" is the key to effectiveness (due to

the variety of languages, dialects, and local customs) and it is not at

all clear what the optimal "coverage area" should be for a project of this

type.

VIII. EVALUATION, IMPACT, AND IMPLICATIONS

The Basic Village Education Project has now completed one year of

programming in the Highlands, two years in Yupiltepeque, and three years

in the Quezada Valley. Impact data has now been collected and analyzed

by the University of South Florida evaluation team for two years of program-

ming in the Quezada Valley (1974-75) and one year (1975) in Yupiltepeque.

Unfortunately, no impact data is yet available for the Highlands, since

1976 constituted the first full year of programming there. All that can

be stated thus far is that the BVE station in the Highlands has attracted

a large audience and that feedback reports from the monitors and the agro-

nomist indicate that many farmers who attend the radio forums and the crop

demonstration meetings have adopted several of the recommended practices.

The magnitude of changes in agricultural practices in the Highlands must

await the completion of the year-end survey to be conducted in late 1977.

The evaluation team notes that the findings of the impact data

analyzed thus far be considered tentative and incomplete. Nevertheless,

the Third Interim Report of the evaluation team (July, 1976) contains a

great deal of data on the impact of project activities in the Oriente.

These findings are based on interviews with about 125 farmers from each

experimental treatment area (R, RM, RMA, C, CM) and are summarized below.

First, they have found that the proportion of farmers owning and

listening to radio has increased substantially in the experimental areas.

The baseline survey found that 77% of the farmers in the Quezada Valley

listened to the radio every day and by 1975 this figure had increased to

93%. In 1973, 46% owned their own radio; by 1975 this figure had risen

to 68%. The 1973 base-line survey found that in Quezada 46% used the

radio as a source of agricultural information. In 1975, 93% stated that

they used the radio as an important source of agricultural information.

The comparable figures for Yupiltepeque are 41% for 1974 which rose to 75%

in 1975. Also, in 1974, 38% of the Quezada farmers reported that the radio

was their primary source of new information about the use of fertilizer,

which rose to 47% in 1975.

There has also been a greater increase in the level of knowledge, pro-

portion of favorable attitudes, and use of recommended practices in the

experimental areas (R, RM, RMA, CM) than in the control areas. In 1974,

the experimental areas in the Quezada Valley registered a 25% increase in

knowledge of the recommended agricultural practices over the base-line level,

and an additional 9% increase was recorded in 1975. A 24% increase was re-

ported in Yupiltepeque in 1975 (the first year of programming there) which

is about the same as the increase measured during the first year of program-

ming in Quezada. In contrast, a 13% increase was measured in the control

areas in 1974, and a 1% increase in 1975.

In the area of farmers' attitudes, a 39% increase in favorable atti-

tudes towards recommended practices was found in Quezada in 1974, with an

additional 11% increase observed in 1975. In Yupiltepeque, a 21% increase

in favorable attitudes was found in 1975. In the control areas, a 30%

increase in favorable attitudes was recorded in 1974, and a 2% increase in

1975.

Changes in the use of recommended practices reveal a somewhat different

pattern. In 1974, a -2% adoption rate was recorded in Quezada, and a -4% in

control area. This negative change rate reflects the shortage of fertili-

zer (due to its high price) and the drought suffered that year. Several

of the recommended practices relate to the use of fertilizer, and fewer

farmers used fertilizer in 1974 than in 1973. In 1975, Quezada registered

a 32% increase in the use of recommended practices, Yupiltepeque registered

a 21% increase, and the control area registered a 4% increase.

The above figures represent the average change in all experimental

areas compared to the control areas. In order to ascertain the impact of

the monitors and the agronomist, we must examine the figures for each type

of treatment area. In the Quezada monitor treatment areas (RM), the in-

crease in knowledge was 10% in 1975 over 1974, compared to 9% in the radio-

only (R) treatment areas. In Yupiltepeque (first year programming) the

increase was 40% in the "RM" area compared to 14% in the "R" area. In the

monitor-only (CM) area (also first year programming) the increase was 10%

compared to 1% in the control area.

In the area of attitudes, an 11% increase in favorable attitudes was

observed in the Quezada "RM" areas and in the "R" (radio-only) areas. In

Yupiltepeque, a 40% increase in favorable attitudes was recorded in the "RM"

area compared to a 14% increase in the "R" area. In the "CM" (monitor-only)

area, an 11% increase was measured, and a 2% increase was observed in the

control area.

Regarding changes in the use of recommended practices, we find a 34%

increase in the use of recommended practices in Quezada "RM" in 1975 com-

pared to 1974, versus a 22% increase in the Quezada "R" area. In Yupilte-

peque, however, we find a 20% increase in the "RM" area and a 29% increase

in the "R" treatment area. In the "CM" treatment area a 14% increase

occurred and in the control area a 4% increase in the use of recommended

practices occurred.

In the areas where an agronomist was added, no additional increase in

knowledge is observed. We find an 8% increase in Quezada RMA compared to a

10% increase in Quezada RM. In Yupiltepeque, we find a 23% increase in the

RMA area compared to 40% in the RM area. Nor is there any additional in-

crease in favorable attitudes in the RMA areas. In Quezada RMA we find a

10% increase; in Quezada RM an 11% increase. In Yupiltepeque, the increase

is 20% in the RMA area and 40% in the RM area (see Table I).

TABLE I

CHANGES IN KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND PRACTICE, 1974-1975
IN ORIENTED AS MEASURED IN 1975 TIME SAMPLE SURVEY

Treatment Sub-areas % Change 1974-1975*
Knowledge Attitude Practice

Quezada

R 8.9 11.2 21.7
RM 10.4 11.1 33.7
RMA 8.4 9.5 45.7
Quezada Total 9.3 10.6 31.8

Yupi

R 13.5 13.7 29.0
RM 39.8 40.2 20.4
RMA 23.2 20.6 13.5
Yupi Total 24.3 23.5 20.5

Ipala

C (Control) 1.0 2.0 4.3
CM 9.9 10.1 14.1
Ipala Total 6.3 6.8 9.5

Total All Areas 12.9 13.5 23.1

*Percent change compared to 1974 base.

Source: Third Interim Report, Evaluation Component, University of South
Florida, July 1976.

The absolute levels of knowledge, attitudes, and practices relating to

the 17 recommended agricultural practices measured (out of a total of 36

contained in the BVE programming) show that the level of knowledge and the

prevalence of favorable attitudes is more than twice as high as the rate of

use of these practices. The level of knowledge about these 17 practices

reached a level of 47% in 1975, compared to a level of 41% found in 1974,

representing a 13% increase. The level of favorable attitudes reached in

1975 in the Oriente was 46%, which was a 13.5% increase over the 1974

level of 40%. The level of use of recommended practices increased from

16.6% in 1974 to 20.5% in 1975, representing a 23% increase. The practices

which were adopted the most in 1975 related to the use of fertilizer on

corn and the selection of seed corn (see Table II, practices no. 3,6,7, 10,

and 11).

TABLE II

LEVEL OF USE OF RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN 1974 AND IN 1975

1 2
Reported Reported
Practices Use-1974 Use-1975

1. Stored corn harvest (shelled) in drums or
granary. 180 175
2. Weeded corn crop before weeds reached four
inches high. 146 147
3. Applied fertilizer just before the corn
flowered. 47 80
4. Stored corn seed and protected with "Phostoxin"
or "Folidol." 40 45
5. Planted corn combined with beans in first
planting. 33 35
6. Selected corn seed from the best ears of the
best stalks. 29 34

1 2
Reported Reported
Practices Use-1974 Use-1975

7. Hilled and applied fertilizer at same time
on corn at flowering time. 27 46
8. Stored beans and protected with "Phostoxin,"
"Folidol," "Malathion," or "Methyl Bromide." 23 25
9. Applied soil insecticide just before turning
soil. 18 15
10. Use complete fertilizer when planting corn. 17 20
11. Applied nitrogen fertilizer on corn at
flowering time. 17 35
12. Used "Dipterex," "Folidol," or "Lebaycid" to
control diabrotica beetle in beans.* 16 9
13. Requested credit for crops which was approved
and used. 10 12
14. Selected bean seed from best plants and pods
before harvest. 8 10
15. Sent a soil sample to Ministry of Agriculture
for analysis. 4 3
16. Used hybrid seed corn (H3, H5, H102) which was
treated and purchased recently in sacks. 2 2
17. Used "Volaton" insecticide to disinfect soil 1 3

Total Use 618 696
Total Possible Use 3400 3400

N = 200 unless otherwise indicated
Only considered if diabrotica beetle was a problem

Source: Third Interim Report, Evaluation Component, University of
South Florida, July, 1976.

The survey data also reveals that the BVE radio is the most frequently

mentioned source of the new knowledge, attitudes, and practices exhibited

by farmers in the Oriente in 1975, and the monitor is mentioned as the

second most frequent source of information (see Tables III, IV, and V).

TABLE III

SOURCES OF NEW KNOWLEDGE OF RECOMMENDED PRACTICES

REPORTED IN 1975 BY FARMERS IN ORIENTED AREA OF GUATEMALA

Number of
Source Farmers Reporting

1. BVE Radio 79
2. BVE Monitor 36
3. Friends and Neighbors 20
4. Non-BVE Agronomist 17
5. BVE Radio and Monitor 15
6. "Nothing New" 6
7. BVE Radio plus "Other Source" 5
8. Personal Experience 1
9. BVE Monitor plus "Other Source" 1
10. BVE Radio and Monitor plus "Other Source" 1
11. No Answer 1

Total Reporting New Knowledge of Recommended Practices 182

TABLE IV

INFORMATION SOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH FAVORABLE CHANGE

IN ATTITUDES TOWARD RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN 1975

Number of Farmers
Reporting
Source Information Source

1. BVE Radio 84
2. BVE Monitor 34
3. Friends and Neighbors 19
4. Non-BVE Agronomist 16
5. BVE Radio + Monitor 16
6. BVE Radio + "Another Source" 7
7. Nothing New 6
8. BVE Radio and Monitor + "Another Source" 1
9. Personal Experience 1
10. BVE Monitor + "Another Source" 1
11. No Answer 1

Total Responses

TABLE V

SOURCES OF INFORMATION REPORTED BY FARMERS

ADOPTING RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN 1975

Number of Adopters
Information Source Reporting Source

1. Radio Quezada 50
2. Past Information ("Nothing new") 31
3. Radio Quezada and "Another Source" 14
4. Friends and Neighbors 14
5. From personal experience and observation 13
6. Radio Quezada and BVE Monitor 12
7. From Non-BVE Agronomist 5
8. From BVE Monitor 3
9. From Radio Quezada, BVE Monitor, and "Another Source" 1

Total 143

Source: Third Interim Report, Evaluation Component, University of
South Florida, July, 1976.

In the area of crop yields, the evaluation team has not found any

consistent pattern of impact deriving from the BVE project. The 1974

data shows no impact by the monitor or agronomist on crop yields, and

all crops suffered from the serious drought experienced that year. In

1975, no consistent pattern of impact was found, with the exception of

a strong relationship between increases in bean and sorghum yields and

an increase in the concentration of BVE experimental treatments in

Yupiltepeque. As Table VI indicates, bean yields (and sorghum yields,

which are not shown) increase significantly as the monitor and agronomist

are added to the treatment area. Generally, the evaluation team feels

that climatic conditions have had a greater impact on 1975 crop yields

(which increased greatly in most areas of the Oriente except Ipala) than

the increment of new practices adopted in 1975, and that it is very

difficult to measure the impact of the agronomist in such a short (two year)

period. Also complicating matters is the fact that agronomist from Guatema-

lan government agencies, and from the Cuna del Sol cooperative (a member of

FECOAR, another AID funded project) also operate in project areas and they

do not, of course, restrict themselves to "RMA" areas. It is unclear how

much impact, if any, their activities have had. Thus far it would appear

that changing climatic conditions from year to year and from one project

area to another account for the changes in crop yields observed.

TABLE VI

CHANGES IN CROP YIELDS, 1974-1975 IN ORIENTED
AS MEASURED IN JANUARY CROP SURVEYS

o Change 1974-1975*
Treatment Sub-areas Corn Yields Bean Yields

Quezada

R 41.3 16.9
RM 39.9 14.2
RMA 75.4 36.5

Yupi

R 57.0 11.8
RM 41.4 33.9
RMA 45.0 50.6

Ipala

C (Control) -9.1 37.0
CM -25.6 5.5

*Change compared to 1974 base. All changes are positive unless otherwise
indicated. All yield data is tentative and subject to further analysis.

Source: Third Interim Report, Evaluation Component, University of South
Florida, July, 1976.

The evaluation team assigned each farmer in their sample a "practice

score" based on the number of recommended practices they were using (thus

allowing them to rank the farmers into high, moderate, and low levels of

use) and a "change score" based upon the number of practices that were

adopted between 1974 and 1975. Their correlation anlaysis found that

neither high practice levels nor high change rates are associated with an

increase in the concentration of the BVE experimental treatments. They

do not believe that they have found any consistent evidence to suggest

that a differential impact is obtained with the use of a monitor over the

radio alone. There is some evidence that the monitor is affecting levels

of knowledge and attitudes, but it is not high enough to be significantly

different from the impact of the radio alone.

An analysis was also made of farmers who attended the radio forums.

They found that those who attended the forums had a higher practice score

than did non-attenders, but they did not report as many changes (adoptions

of new practices) as did the non-attenders. This appears to reflect the

fact that more "progressive" farmers, who are already using many of the

recommended practices, are the ones who attend the forums.

The evaluation team examined several characteristics that could be

expected to affect a farmer's "change" and "practice" scores. Signifi-

cantly, they found that neither literacy nor land ownership appears to

be an important factor in explaining the changes observed in the Oriente

between 1974-75. Farmers exhibiting a high level of agricultural practice

are more likely to be literate and own more land than those who exhibit a

low practice score. But farmers who obtained the highest change score

are not more likely to be literate, and often owned little or no land.

No association was found, therefore, between a high change score and

literacy or land ownership. This would suggest that literacy and land

ownership were important factors leading to better agricultural practices

in the past, but recent changes are not associated with these factors.

It thus appears that the high change farmers have changed their agricul-

tural practices in spite of their lack of literacy and land ownership,

and that this has been achieved as a result of the BVE program.

Finally, the evaluation team believes that their data reveal a

"readiness effect" which they had expected. They have found slow but

significant changes in agricultural practices, and believe that the

changes in knowledge and attitudes now being observed will turn into

changes in practice in 1976 and 1977, and that it is quite possible

that these changes will occur at an increasingly rapid rate. If this

assumption is true, then the fact that only two years of programming are

planned for the Highlands where it it admittedly more difficult to

change agricultural practices raises the question of whether a longer

period of programming will be required there before observing signifi-

cant change.

The partial and tentative findings presented above suggest that the

Basic Village Education System is proving to be a highly successful

mechanism for changing agricultural knowledge, attitudes, and practices.

Contrary to the initial expectations of the evaluation team, significant

changes in agricultural practices have been observed in the first two

years of programming in the Oriente. The success achieved by this pro-

ject appears to be due to the highly effective nature of the local field

programming, which is itself based on the effective utilization of the

multiple feedback mechanisms built into the project design. The feedback

reports from the monitors and agronomists, the collection of extensive

data regarding local agricultural practices, the letters and audience

surveys, etc., have allowed the project staff to tailor their program-

ming to specific local needs and desires and to make continuous, on-going

modifications in their programming as conditions dictate.

These feedback mechanisms have not only allowed the project staff to

produce the "right" agricultural recommendations at the right time and in

the right place, etc. They have also produced a strong feeling of community

identification with the station on the part of the target group. The 90%

plus listening rates the stations have achieved illustrate the fact that

the radio is perceived to be "part of the community," it is "their radio."

They listen to it, participate in its programming, and heed its advice.12

As the evaluation team notes, this project raises the question as to

whether this radio system operates and is perceived as a personal

communication system rather than as an impersonal broadcaster of knowledge

coming from an unknown place.

Just how important the "community identification" factor is to project

success must await further analysis of future survey data. Only then will

12
The influence of the radio is symbolized by an incident relating to
insecticide recommendations. The BVE station had, mistakenly, recommended
an insecticide using the bran name rather than the generic name. A farmer
went into a local store and asked for the insecticide, which the store-
owner did not have. He offered to sell the farmer another kind, but the
farmer refused, saying that he would only use the specific item recon'nended
by the radio.

54

we know whether the project's impact has been significantly less in

Yupiltepeque and in areas outside of Momostenango, or whether the feeling

of community identification can be extended to a larger area (extension

appears to be more possible in the Oriente than in the Highlands).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Project-Related Documents

Academy for Educational Development, "The Basic Village Education Project,"
October, 1972. Report submitted to USAID, LA/DR/EST, Washington, D. C.
(This report contains the results of the feasibility study performed
during the summer of 1972).

Academy for Educational Development, "The Basic Village Education Project -
Guatemala: Project Implementation Plan," August 15, 1973. Report
submitted to USAID, LA/DR/EST, Washington, D. C.

Academy for Educational Development, "Basic Village Education Project -
Guatemala: Third Interim Report Field Operations, June 1975 June
1976." Report submitted to USAID, LA/DR/EST, Washington, D. C.

Academy for Educational Development, "The Story of One BVE Radio Program:
June 1975. AED, Washington, D. C. June, 1975.

Academy for Educational Development, "The Basic Village Education Project -
Guatemala: The Story of One BVE Radio Forum (Radio Forum 10-75)."
Report submitted to USAID, LA/DR/EST, Washington, D. C., June 1975.

Academy for Educational Development, "The Basic Village Education Project -
Guatemala: Second Interim Report Field Operations, July 1974 -
June 1975. Report submitted to USAID, LA/DR/EST, Washington, D. C.

Academy for Educational Development, "A Cost-Analysis of a Regional Non-
formal Education System for Small Farmers in Guatemala," June, 1975.

Academy for Educational Development, "The Basic Village Education Project -
Guatemala: Second Interim Report Evaluation Component", University
of South Florida, September, 1975, by Edgar Nesman and Thomas Rich.
Report submitted to USAID, LA/DR/EST, Washington, D. C.

Academy for Educational Development, "The Basic Village Education Project -
Guatemala: Third Interim Report Evaluation Component", University
of South Florida, July, 1976, by Edgar Nesman and Thomas Rich.

Carmack, Robert M., "Communication of Agricultural Information in the
Guatemalan Occidente: Final Report," May 1974. Typed report on file
at the Academy for Educational Development.

Fanning, Thomas J., "A Review of the Graphic Arts Components of the Basic
Village Education Program in Guatemala." January 20, 1976, Information
Materials Press, New York, N. Y. Report submitted to the Academy for
Educational Development.

Nesman, Edgar and Thomas Rich, "The Comparative Study of the Impact of
Mass Communication on Subsistence Farmers in Guatemala," April, 1975.
Paper presented at a meeting of the Southern Sociological Society,
Washington, D. C., April, 1975.

Nesman, Edgar and Thomas Rich, Howard Ray and Mario Dardon Pereira.
"The Role of Modern Communications Technology in Strategies to
Accelerate Rural Development." AED/USAID/Government of Guatemala.
Paper presented at a conference on "Non-formal Education: New
Strategies for Developing Old Resources," held at Michigan State
University, April 24-26, 1974.

Nesman, Edgar, Thomas Rich and Howard Ray. "Innovativeness Among Sub-
sistence Farmers in Guatemala," August 1974. Paper presented at
a meeting of the Rural Sociological Society in Montreal, Canada,
August 22-25, 1974.

Nesman, Edgar and Thomas Rich. "The Basic Village Education Project -
Guatemala: Interim Review, February 2-4, 1976." (Evaluation com-
ponent, University of South Florida). Report submitted to USAID,
LA/DR/EST, Washington, D. C.

Ray, Howard E., and Jose Luis Monterroso. "Transfer of Technology."
Paper prepared for presentation to the course: "Agricultural Pro-
duction Systems for the Tropics," CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 25
March, 1975. On file at the Academy for Educational Development,
Washington, D. C.

USAID/Guatemala, "Basic Village Education-Guatemala," PROP, 2/16/73
(revised version 2/1/74) project number 598-15-690-551.

USAID/Guatemala, "Basic Rural Education Guatemala," PROP, 2/14/75,
project number 520-11-670-228.

II. General Works

Agency for International Development, "The Effectiveness of Alternative
Instructional Media: A Survey." Office of Education and Human
Resources, Bureau for Technical Assistance, 1973.

Agency for International Development, "The Cost of Instructional Radio
and Television for Developing Countries," Office of Education and
Human Resources, Bureau for Technical Assistance, Agency for Inter-
national Development, Washington, D. C., 1973.

Agency for International Development, "Notes on Case Studies for Instruc-
tional Media Projects." Office of Education and Human Resources,
Bureau for Technical Assistance, Agency for International Development
Washington, D. C., 1971.

Armsey, James W., and Norman C. Dahl. "An Inquiry into the Uses of
Instructional Technology," New York, The Ford Foundation, 1973,
(report).

Brembeck, Cole S., and Timothy J. Thompson, "New Strategies for Educational
Development: The Cross-Cultural Search for Non-formal Alternatives."
London: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath & Co., 1973.

Coombs, Phillip H., and Manzoor Ahmed. "Attacking Rural Poverty: How
Non-formal Education Can Help." Baltimore, The John Hopkins Univer-
sity Press, 1974.

Feaster, J. Gerald., "Measurements and Determinants of Innovativeness
Among Primitive Agriculturalists," Rural Sociology, Vol. 33 (Sept.):
339-348.

Herzog, William A. et. al., "Patterns of Diffusion in Rural Brazil."
Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, 1968.

Kleis, Russell. "Program of Studies in Non-formal Education: Case Studies."
Institute for International Studies in Education, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1974.

Lassey, William R., "Communication Behavior and Decision-making in the
Agricultural Development of Traditional Communities (Guatemala)."
Unpublished paper, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural
Sociology, Montana State University, Bozman, Montana, 1966.

Lionberger, Herbert F. "The Adoption of New Ideas and Practices." Ames,
The Iowa State University Press, 1960.

58

Paulston, Rolland G., "Non-formal Education: An Annotated International
Bibliography," New York, Frederick A. Praeger Co., 1972.

Madison, John. "Radio and Television in Literacy: Reports and Papers on
Mass Communication (No. 62). Paris: UNESCO, 1971.

Mather, J. C., and Paul Neurath. "An Indian Experiment in Radio Farm
Forums." Paris: UNESCO, 1959.

McAnany, Emile G. "Radio's Role in Development: Five Strategies of Use."
Academy for Educational Development, Information Center on Instruc-
tional Technology, Bulletin No. 4., 1973.

Myren, Delbert T., "Communications in Agricultural Development." Mexico
City, Mexico, Ministry of Agriculture and the University of Wisconsin,
1964.

Rogers, Everett M., "Diffusion of Innovations": New York, The Free Press,
1962.

Rogers, Everett M., and F. Floyd Shoemaker, "Communication of Innovations,"
New York, The Free Press, 1971.

Rogers, Everett M., and Lunne Svenning. "Modernization Among Peasants:
The Impact of Communication," New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1969.

Roy, Prodipto, and Frederick B. Waisanen, and Everett Rogers. "The Impact
of Communication on Rural Development: An Investigation in Costa
Rica and India." Paris: UNESCO, 1969.

Solo, Robert A. and Everett Rogers. "Inducing Technological Change for
Economic Growth and Development." East Lansing, Michigan State
University Press, 1972.

MILLISECOND	CLASS.METHOD	MESSAGE
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Application State validated or built
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Navigation Object created from URI query string
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.display_item	Retrieving item or group information
0	sobekcm_page_globals.get_entire_collection_hierarchy	Retrieving hierarchy information
0	sobekcm_assistant.get_entire_collection_hierarchy
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation	Found item aggregation on local cache
0	item_aggregation_builder.get_item_aggregation	Found 'all' item aggregation in cache
0	system.web.ui.page.page_load (ufdc.page_load)
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor.on_page_load
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_style_references	Adding style references to HTML
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Reading the text from the file and echoing back to the output stream
26	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Finished reading and writing the file